Comments

I agree with ConanFuji. Just a cursory glance at the shadows in 'Morning Exercise' and '2 minutes' suggests that the sun was very high in the sky when these images were captured. Interestingly, the Exif data has been removed from both images. I wonder why!

This challenge is being hosted by a person who has been proved to operate multiple accounts (Member identities) on DPR and who has used these multiple accounts to enter his own images in challenges for which he is the host! In other words, he has established multiple identities for the purposes of cheating. Need evidence? See http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51323791 and succeeding posts.

A perusal of this forum http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51044162 (which is now in its fifth chapter) and this forum http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51270423 will amply illustrate the scale of the problem that cheating now poses for members who act with honesty and integrity.

In fairness to honest members, I ask DPR to withdraw this challenge and cancel the member identities that have been opened for the purposes of cheating. By taking this action, DPR can start the process of restoring the integrity of the challenge system which so many of us honest members enjoyed in the past.

The capture date given on this entry is false; it has been manually altered to make the entry ‘fit into’ the capture date rule (which has been ignored by the Host). This is cheating. Need evidence? See http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50756164

The capture date given on this entry is false; it has been manually altered to make the entry ‘fit into’ the capture date rule (which has been ignored by the Host). This is cheating. Need evidence? See http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50756164

The capture date given on this entry is false; it has been manually altered to make the entry ‘fit into’ the capture date rule (which has been ignored by the Host). This is cheating. Need evidence? See http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50756164

The capture date given on this entry is false; it has been manually altered to make the entry ‘fit into’ the capture date rule (which has been ignored by the Host). This is cheating. Need evidence? See http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50756164

The capture date given on this entry is false; it has been manually altered to make the entry ‘fit into’ the capture date rule (which has been ignored by the Host). This is cheating. Need evidence? See http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50756164

The capture date given on this entry is false; it has been manually altered to make the entry ‘fit into’ the capture date rule (which has been ignored by the Host). This is cheating. Need evidence? See http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50756164

The capture dates given on some entries to this challenge are false: they have been manually altered to make the relevant entries ‘fit into’ your capture date rule. This is cheating. Each of the relevant entries has been annotated in its’ comments field. Need evidence? See http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50756164

Entries that do not comply with the rules of a challenge should, as a matter of fairness to other entrants and to those who did not enter, be disqualified. Policing rules that you set is an integral part of your duties as Host and your obligations to members who entered valid images, to members who have the integrity to act honestly and to DPR members generally.

Likewise, your failure, neglect or refusal over a period of two weeks to deal with Car629’s request for a ruling is, at best, discourteous in the extreme and it is also a failure of your basic obligations as Host.

On 6 January I mailed you a private message to which you have not responded. That, of course, is your prerogative.

As this challenge is about to close and is likely to produce results that will be unfair I am now placing my message on the record; I wrote as follows:-

“You are currently hosting a challenge 'Light Painting'. Many of the entries do not meet the rules you set, particularly as to capture date. See my votes and refer to the 0.5's. Entries that do not comply with the rules should, as a matter of fairness to other entrants and those who did not enter, be disqualified. Policing rules is an integral part of a host's obligations to other DPR members.”

Regards,Pat Curley

I am disappointed - diplomatic speak!

I became aware of the discourse on the topic of cheating relatively recently (when I started trawling the forums) and I suppose I have kept my head in the sand on the issue.

I had assumed that cheating was at a relatively low level until I looked behind some of the images entered to this challenge – prompted by one person’s failure to change the time stamp as well as the date stamp on his entry which resulted in impossibly dark early-afternoon lighting conditions.

To be honest, I don’t have a solution but, given what is now known about this challenge, I would have expected the moderators, if any, at DPR to have ‘pulled’ it at this stage. That might seem harsh on the honest entrants but it would do something to restore the integrity of the challenge system.

I just hope voters will have read all these comments and the challenge is won by an ‘honest’ entry. We'll know in an hour!

On 6 January I mailed you a private message to which you have not responded. That, of course, is your prerogative.

As this challenge is about to close and is likely to produce results that will be unfair I am now placing my message on the record; I wrote as follows:-

“You are currently hosting a challenge 'Light Painting'. Many of the entries do not meet the rules you set, particularly as to capture date. See my votes and refer to the 0.5's. Entries that do not comply with the rules should, as a matter of fairness to other entrants and those who did not enter, be disqualified. Policing rules is an integral part of a host's obligations to other DPR members.”

Regards,Pat Curley

Thank you, RaptorUK!

I am hoping, perhaps in vain, that the host will react before it is too late or will proffer an acceptable explanation of his/her lack of diligence.

I know these challenges are for fun and education rather than reward so I don’t want to appear to be over-reacting. Nevertheless, I do think this kind of behaviour, by the host and by those who manipulated their capture date information, debases the whole concept, which I enjoy very much.

I shall be disappointed if this lack of integrity in this and other challenges causes the concept to fall into disrepute among the DPR community.

On 6 January I mailed you a private message to which you have not responded. That, of course, is your prerogative.

As this challenge is about to close and is likely to produce results that will be unfair I am now placing my message on the record; I wrote as follows:-

“You are currently hosting a challenge 'Light Painting'. Many of the entries do not meet the rules you set, particularly as to capture date. See my votes and refer to the 0.5's. Entries that do not comply with the rules should, as a matter of fairness to other entrants and those who did not enter, be disqualified. Policing rules is an integral part of a host's obligations to other DPR members.”